HomeMy WebLinkAboutTitle 5, 16, 17 Amendments (CODE-0149-2026) - CC Presentation 5.5.2026 (1)Amendments to Title 5 (Licenses, Permits, and
Regulations),Title 16 (Subdivision Regulations), and Title
17 (Zoning Regulations) of the City’s Municipal Code
(CODE-0149-2026)
May 5, 2026
Good evening, Mayor Stewart and Council members, as mentioned already, my
name is Ethan Estrada, I am an Assistant Planner for CDD, and I will be
presenting the proposed amendments to Titles 5, 16, and 17 of the City’s
Municipal Code.
1
Recommendation
Introduce a Draft Ordinance entitled:
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, Amending Title 16 (Subdivision Regulations), Title 17
(Zoning Regulations), and Title 5 (Licenses, Permits, and
Regulations) of the Municipal Code regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Urban Lot Splits, Mobile
Homes, and other Clarifications and Changes to Regulations
Associated with Housing, with an Exemption from Environmental
Review (CEQA).”
The recommendation before you tonight is for your Council to introduce a Draft
Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, Amending Title 16 (Subdivision Regulations), Title 17 (Zoning
Regulations), and Title 5 (Licenses, Permits, and Regulations) of the Municipal
Code regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units,
Urban Lot Splits, Mobile Homes, and other Clarifications and Changes to
Regulations Associated with Housing, with an Exemption from Environmental
Review (CEQA).”
2
Summary
Proposed amendments would:
• Incorporate new legislation regarding urban lot splits
• Address inconsistencies between state law and the code
• Remove barriers to housing development
• Incorporate miscellaneous changes that address conflicts within the
Municipal Code and other changes
The proposed code amendments before you tonight would incorporate new
legislation pertaining to minor urban lot splits, address inconsistencies between
state law and the City’s Municipal Code, remove barriers to housing
development identified by the public and staff, and incorporate a variety of
miscellaneous changes that address potential conflicts within the code and
other changes.
With that, we’ll start with amendments pertaining to ADUs and JADUs as
provided in Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
3
Accessory & Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Clarify height and setback limits for ADUs
• Mirror state law – no substantial change to what’s already allowed
Defer to underlying zone standard for maximum ADU height
• Potentially increase ADU development in multifamily zones
Remove provision regarding “two-step” to “one-step process”
• Introduced in 2024 code update – can be interpreted as
inconsistent with state law
• Has not been utilized
Staff propose several amendments that would introduce new language and alter
existing language regarding height and setback limits for ADUs as provided under
state law. These specific limits are already imposed where applicable, so these
amendments would not result in any substantial changes to what’s already
allowed.
Another proposed amendment would defer maximum height limits for ADUs to
the standards in the underlying zone, where currently the maximum ADU height
in any zone is 25 feet. This could potentially increase ADU development
opportunities in zones like the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, which allow a maximum
structure height of 35 feet.
Staff also propose to remove a provision of the ADU code regarding a “two-step”
approval process for certain ADU conversion projects. In 2024, this provision was
added to create a one-step permit process where two were initially required for
certain cases. However, since its implementation, it has been found to
potentially conflict with state law and has not been utilized to any great effect.
4
Accessory & Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Exceptions to Discretionary Review
• If consistent with applicable standards, ADUs and JADUs are
exempt from discretionary review
“Attached” ADU v. “Detached” ADU
• Adds language to definition to differentiate between attached and
detached ADUs
Lot Coverage Clarification
• Per state law, the first 800 square feet of ADU building footprint is
exempt from lot coverage requirements
Several other proposed amendments would add language that clearly excludes
ADUs and JADUs consistent with applicable standards from discretionary review
as is required by state law.
And lastly, staff propose amendments that would expand the definition of ADUs
to clarify between attached and detached, as well as an existing provision that
exempts ADUs from lot coverage requirements up to the first 800 square feet of
ADU building footprint as required by state law.
5
Minor Urban Lot Splits
Assembly Bill 1061 now permits minor urban lot splits within historic
districts
• Minor urban lot splits are still prohibited on sites that are listed as
historic resources (by either the state or city)
• Minor urban lot splits are still prohibited if the alteration or
demolition of a historic resource is required to facilitate the
subdivision
Staff proposes an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to
maintain consistency with state law
Now looking at Minor Urban Lot Splits as provided in Title 16 of the Municipal
Code.
Passed last year, Assembly Bill 1061 introduced provisions to state law that no
longer allow local agencies to prohibit a minor urban lot split subdivision based
on a site being located within a historic district. State law does still allow
agencies to prohibit this type of subdivision on sites that are listed as historic
resources, as well as where the alteration or demolition of a historic resource is
required to facilitate the subdivision.
So, staff has proposed an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations pertaining
to minor urban lot splits to maintain consistency with state law.
6
Mobile Homes
Per AB 2782, the City is no longer required to exclude long-term space
leases from its mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance (SLOMC
5.44)
• Per Council direction, staff propose an amendment to Ch. 5.44 to
remove this exemption
Staff identified a provision of SLOMC 5.44 regarding an exemption
process for a section of this chapter that no longer exists
• Staff proposes removal of this provision
Moving along to Mobile Homes as provided in Title 5 of the Municipal Code.
With Assembly Bill 2782 having gone into effect, the City is no longer required to
exclude long-term space leases from its mobile home park rent stabilization
ordinance provided under Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code. Per Council
direction, staff has proposed an amendment to this chapter to remove this
exemption in accordance with state law.
Additionally, in review of Chapter 5.44, staff identified a provision that provides
an exemption process for a section of this chapter that was removed in a prior
code update. Staff proposes the removal of this provision.
7
Density Bonus – Fractional Density
SLOMC 17.140.040 does not specify whether to use fractional density
units or “dwelling units per acre” when calculating density bonus units.
• Allows an applicant to maximize the number of market-rate units
they can while limiting the number of affordable units they must
provide
Staff proposes an amendment requiring the consistent use of either
fractional density units or “dwelling units per acre” as provided in
Density Bonus Law (Section 65915) when calculating density bonus
units
Looking at Affordable Housing Incentives as provided in Title 17 of the Municipal
Code.
Currently, Chapter 17.140 of the Municipal Code pertaining to affordable housing
incentives for density bonus projects does not specify whether an applicant
must use fractional density as provided in Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code
or “dwelling units per acre” as provided in Density Bonus Law when calculating
the number of market-rate and affordable units that can be built as part of a
density bonus project. Under the current code, applicants can maximize the
number of market-rate units that can be built via fractional density while
minimizing the number of affordable units to be provided via “dwelling units per
acre.”
To avoid this, staff proposes an amendment that would require an applicant to
choose either fractional density or “dwelling units per acre” when calculating all
density bonus units.
8
Miscellaneous Changes
Homestay Permits
• Proposed amendment to SLOMC 17.86.160 clarifying requirements that must
be complied with on a continuous basis, not just upon application for a permit
Accessory Structures
• Proposed amendments to SLOMC 17.70.010 to update terms used and adjust
or remove language that is inconsistent with state law
• Removes requirement for a covenant agreement for an accessory structure
Driveway Visibility
• Adds a subsection to SLOMC 17.70.210 to mirror current Engineering
Standard 7950 – prohibits structures that are three feet or taller within a
specific site visibility zone at driveway approaches
Finally, looking at miscellaneous changes throughout Title 17 of the Municipal
Code.
Staff propose an amendment to Section 17.86.160 pertaining to Homestay
Permits, clarifying that applicable requirements must be complied with on a
continuous basis, not just upon application for a permit.
Regarding accessory structures under Section 17.70.010, several proposed
amendments would address an inconsistency with state law pertaining to ADUs
and refresh some of the language used to maintain consistency with other
sections of the code. Staff also propose an amendment that would remove a
requirement for property owners to enter a covenant agreement to permit an
accessory structure on their property.
Looking at Section 17.70.210 pertaining to vision clearance standards, staff
proposes the addition of a new subsection regarding driveway visibility standards
as provided under Engineering Standard 7950.
9
Miscellaneous Changes
Use Permit Clarification for General Retail
• Proposed amendment to Table 2-1 of SLOMC 17.10 that would mark
General Retail as an allowed use in the C-N zone when the floor area is
2,000 square feet or less.
Setback Clarification for Decks
• Proposed amendment to SLOMC 17.70.170 to clarify that decks with a
height of 30 inches or more are subject to side and rear setback
requirements
Additionally, staff propose an amendment to Table 2-1 provided under Chapter
17.10 regarding allowed uses to correct an error identified by staff. The table
currently says a minor use permit is required for general retail in the C-N zone
when one is not required when the floor area of the commercial unit is 2,000
square feet or less.
And lastly, staff propose an amendment to Section 17.70.170 to further clarify
that decks with a height of 30 inches or more are subject to side and rear setback
requirements.
10
General Plan Consistency
6th Cycle Housing Element
The proposed amendments to Title 5, Title 16, and Title 17 are consistent with
various policies under the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element:
• Policy 2.4 – encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City’s
populations…
• Policy 6.8 – to meet the 6
th Cycle RHNA production targets, the City will
support residential infill development and promote a higher residential density
where appropriate
• Policy 8.1 – encourage housing development that meets a variety of special
needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly,
students, veterans, farmworkers, the homeless…
Regarding General Plan Consistency, the proposed code amendments before
you tonight are consistent with a variety of policies in the City’s Housing Element.
This includes policies that encourage housing production, infill development,
and increased density across our housing continuum.
11
Recommendation
Introduce a Draft Ordinance entitled:
“An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, Amending Title 16 (Subdivision Regulations), Title 17
(Zoning Regulations), and Title 5 (Licenses, Permits, and
Regulations) of the Municipal Code regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, Urban Lot Splits, Mobile
Homes, and other Clarifications and Changes to Regulations
Associated with Housing, with an Exemption from Environmental
Review (CEQA).”
And that concludes my presentation, thank you.
12